Common Grammar Mistakes in English: An Analysis of Student's

Essay Outputs
 Chapter 1
The Problem

Introduction

Effective academic writing is crucial for students’ success in higher

education, as it reflects their ability to communicate ideas clearly and

coherently. However, persistent grammatical errors in student essays remain

a significant concern, hindering the quality of academic discourse. Anh et al.

(2022) analyzed 110 essays from second-year English Studies majors at a

Vietnamese university, identifying frequent errors in article usage (25.5%),

prepositions (14.2%), and plural/singular forms (13.7%). Similarly, Wulandari

and Harida (2021) found that students often struggle with tenses, word

classes, and punctuation in essay writing. These findings underscore the

need for targeted interventions to address specific grammatical challenges in

academic writing.

In the Indonesian context, Anaktototy et al. (2023) examined expository

essays from 39 students at Pattimura University, revealing that misformation

errors accounted for 42.27% of all grammatical mistakes. Masagus and

Syahri (2022) further identified misordering as a prevalent issue in descriptive

paragraph writing among English Study Program students. These studies

highlight the necessity for tailored instructional strategies to enhance students’

grammatical proficiency.

In Saudi Arabia, Ibrahim (2021) investigated grammatical errors among EFL

undergraduate students, finding that subject-verb agreement and spelling

were among the most common issues. Similarly, Ho (2024) reported that

postgraduate students in the Mekong Delta faced challenges with coherence,

cohesion, and grammatical accuracy in academic writing. These insights

emphasize the importance of comprehensive language support programs to

mitigate common grammatical pitfalls in student writing.

In the Philippines, Tica-A (2024) assessed grammatical errors in narrative

essays written by college students, identifying pronoun usage and the Filipino

grammatical linker “pang-angkop” as frequent errors. Additionally, Anyanwu et

al. (2024) explored the impact of new media syntax on students’ writing,

noting violations of English syntactic rules and misrepresentation of

meanings. Addressing these issues through focused grammar instruction and

effective time management strategies is crucial for improving students’ writing

quality.

Furthermore, Ramaoka et al. (2024) investigated grammatical errors in

descriptive essays written by Grade 10 learners in South Africa, identifying

issues such as sentence fragments, verb tense inconsistencies, and subject-

verb agreement errors. Similarly, Anaktototy et al. (2023) found that omission

errors were prevalent in students’ expository essays. These findings suggest

the need for educators to consider linguistic backgrounds and contemporary

language influences when designing curricula aimed at enhancing

grammatical accuracy.
 Despite numerous studies on grammatical errors in student writing, several

gaps remain that require further exploration. Most existing research primarily

focuses on identifying and categorizing grammatical mistakes, but limited

attention has been given to how these errors impact academic writing quality

and comprehension. While studies highlight frequent errors such as article

misuse, subject-verb agreement issues, and tense inconsistencies, there is

little discussion on how these mistakes affect the coherence and readability of

student essays. A deeper analysis is necessary to understand the relationship

between grammatical accuracy and writing proficiency, which could help

educators develop more effective instructional strategies.

These efforts, the persistence of grammatical errors in student essays

suggests that more targeted interventions are needed. This study aims to

analyze the most common grammar mistakes in the academic writing of

JHCSC students, providing insights into their frequency, causes, and impact

on writing quality. By identifying prevalent errors and assessing their

significance, the study seeks to inform educators, curriculum developers, and

institutional administrators on effective strategies to enhance students’ writing

proficiency.

Addressing these grammatical challenges is crucial not only for academic

success but also for students’ future professional endeavors. Effective written

communication is a fundamental skill in various fields, and improving grammar

proficiency can contribute to better job prospects and workplace

communication. This study, therefore, contributes to the broader discourse on

language education by providing empirical data on grammatical errors and

recommending pedagogical approaches to enhance academic writing

standards.

Theoretical Framework

This study is grounded in Corder’s Error Analysis Theory as the General

Theory and Chomsky’s Universal Grammar Theory as the Specific Theory to

examine the grammatical errors in the English essay outputs of JHCSC

students. These theories provide a comprehensive framework for

understanding how learners acquire second language (L2) grammar, the

types of errors they make, and how these errors reflect underlying linguistic

processes.

Error Analysis Theory, introduced by Corder (1967), focuses on studying

learners’ errors as an essential part of second language acquisition. Corder

emphasized that errors are not merely mistakes but valuable indicators of a

learner’s language development. He distinguished between errors, which

occur due to a lack of knowledge and require further learning, and mistakes,

which are occasional lapses in performance that can be self-corrected.

According to this theory, analyzing errors helps educators understand the

underlying rules that learners apply when constructing sentences in their

second language. This theory also highlights key sources of errors, such as

language transfer (influence from the native language), overgeneralization

(applying learned rules too broadly), and developmental errors (natural

mistakes in the process of acquiring new linguistic structures).

Recent studies have used Error Analysis Theory to investigate second

language writing difficulties. For example, Darus and Subramaniam (2009)

conducted a study on Malaysian ESL learners and found that errors in

subject-verb agreement, tenses, and prepositions were among the most

common mistakes in their writing. Similarly, Al-Khasawneh (2014) analyzed

Arabic-speaking students’ English writing and concluded that most errors

were due to direct interference from their native language. These studies

reinforce the relevance of error analysis in understanding the patterns and

causes of grammatical errors in L2 writing. Furthermore, Shafiee et al. (2022)

examined university students’ essays in Iran and emphasized that systematic

error identification allows educators to design targeted interventions to

improve writing accuracy.

In this study, Error Analysis Theory will be applied to categorize and analyze

the grammatical mistakes in JHCSC students’ essays. By identifying the most

frequent types of errors, the study will determine patterns in students’ writing

and their possible causes. This framework will help assess whether these

errors stem from first-language interference, overgeneralization of English

grammar rules, or developmental factors. Understanding these errors will aid

in developing more effective teaching strategies to enhance students’

academic writing skills.

 Universal Grammar (UG), proposed by Noam Chomsky (1981), suggests

that all human languages share a common set of grammatical principles,

which are biologically ingrained in the human mind. This theory argues that

language acquisition is not solely based on memorization or imitation but is

guided by an innate cognitive structure. In second language acquisition, UG

plays a role in how learners internalize L2 grammatical rules. According to this

theory, L2 learners may encounter difficulties when their native language lacks

certain grammatical structures found in the target language. This concept is

further explained through parameter setting, where learners must adjust their

grammatical understanding based on the differences between L1 and L2. For

example, English requires explicit subject pronouns, whereas some

languages, like Spanish, allow subject omission. When learning English,

native Spanish speakers might struggle with consistently using subjects in

their writing.

Several studies have explored the role of UG in second language

acquisition. White (2003) examined whether adult L2 learners still have

access to UG principles when learning new grammar structures and found

that some aspects of UG remain accessible, while others require explicit

instruction. Additionally, Schwartz and Sprouse (1996) proposed the Full

Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis, which suggests that learners initially rely on

their native language grammar but gradually restructure it as they gain

exposure to L2. More recently, Li (2021) studied Chinese L2 learners of

English and found that errors related to article usage and verb tense were

directly linked to differences in UG parameters between Chinese and English.

These studies highlight how UG influences grammatical errors in L2 learners

and supports the idea that some mistakes stem from the cognitive

restructuring of language rules.

In this study, Universal Grammar Theory will be used to explain why JHCSC

students make specific grammatical errors in their essays. By analyzing errors

in terms of UG principles, the research will determine whether students

struggle with English grammar due to L1 interference or if their errors indicate

a broader difficulty in acquiring certain linguistic structures. This framework

will provide insights into the cognitive processes behind second language

learning and help refine teaching approaches to support students in mastering

English grammar more effectively.

Conceptual Framework

The Conceptual Framework of the study provides a systematic depiction of

how to identify and analyze frequent grammatical mistakes made in student

essays. It has three prime components: Input, Process, and Output. The Input

comprises participants (JHCSC students), their essays, proficiency in English

language, and learning resources available to them, and these provide the

base for the study. The Process has major steps like the process of learning

and writing, the process of error identification and analysis, data gathering,

data analysis, and validation to ensure the intensive scrutiny of grammatical

errors. Lastly, the Output discusses the findings of the study that consist of

common grammatical mistakes identification, significant error frequency

difference analysis, and the improvement of students' academic writing

recommendations. This framework offers a systematic way of understanding

how errors in grammar affect students' writing and how intervention that is

specifically targeted can improve English language skills.

Input Process Output

 Learning and
 Participants Writing Process  Common
 Essays  Error and Grammatical
 English Identification Errors
Language Analysis  Significant
Proficiency  Data Collection Differences
 Learning  Data Analysis  Recommendati
Resources  Validation ons

Figure 1: Schematic Diagram of the Study

Statement of the Problem

This study will generally aims to analyze the common grammar mistakes in

English essay outputs among students, with a focus on identifying the

prevalence and impact of these errors on academic writing quality for the

academic year 2024-2025.

Specifically, it seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What are the most common types of grammatical errors found in the

essays of JHCSC students in terms of :

1.1. Subject verb agreement

1.2. Fragments

1.3. Sentence prallelism and;

1.4. Misplaced modifiers

2. Is there a significant difference in the frequency of grammatical errors

among JHCSC students ?

3. What challenges do students face in learning and applying English

grammar rules?

Hypothesis

Null Hypothesis

Ho: There is no significant difference in the frequency of grammatical errors

among JHCSC students.

Alternative Hypothesis

Ha: There is a significant difference in the frequency of grammatical errors

among JHCSC students.

Significance of the Study

The study on common grammar mistakes in English essay outputs among

JHCSC students will benefit several groups in the following ways:

Students. This study will help students by identifying common grammatical

errors and their causes, allowing them to gain a better understanding of their

writing challenges. As a result, students will be able to improve their English

language proficiency and enhance their academic writing skills, leading to

better performance in English courses and improved communication skills in

professional settings.

Educators. The study will provide educators with valuable insights into the

types of grammatical errors students commonly make. This information will

inform the development of targeted teaching strategies and curriculum

adjustments to address these specific errors, ultimately improving the

effectiveness of English language instruction.

Curriculum Developers. This study will provide curriculum developers to

the prevalence and impact of grammatical errors, curriculum designers will be

able to create more effective language learning materials. The study will help

them focus on areas where students struggle most, such as verb use and

sentence structure, allowing curricula to be tailored to better meet students'

needs.

Institutional Administrators. The findings of this study will guide institutional

policies and resource allocation to support English language education.

Recognizing the importance of addressing grammatical errors, administrators

will prioritize initiatives that enhance language instruction and provide

additional resources for students and educators.

Future Researchers. This study will contribute to the broader field of

language education by providing a detailed analysis of grammatical errors in

student writing. Future researchers will be able to build upon these findings to

explore similar issues in different contexts or to develop new pedagogical

approaches.

Scope and Limitations

The scope of this study will focus on analyzing the common grammar

mistakes in English essay outputs among JHCSC students, with the aim of

identifying prevalent types of grammatical errors and exploring their impact on

essay quality. It also seeks to determine if there are significant differences in

error frequency based on demographic factors, providing insights for targeted

pedagogical strategies to improve writing skills.

However, the study has several limitations. It is grounded in theories related

to second language acquisition, which may not fully capture the complexities

of language learning in diverse contexts. The study is confined to a specific

sample of JHCSC students, limiting its generalizability to broader populations.

Additionally, methodological constraints, such as reliance on a limited sample

size and potential biases in data collection and analysis, may affect the

validity and reliability of the findings.

Definition of Terms

The following terms are defined based on their relevance to this study,

“Common Grammar Mistakes in English: An Analysis of Students’ Essay

Outputs.” These definitions provide both conceptual meanings and

operational definitions as they apply to the context of this research.

Academic Writing Quality. This refers to the standard of writing that

includes clear argumentation, proper organization, evidence-backed claims,

and adherence to syntax and punctuation rules (University of Pennsylvania,

2024; ERIC, 2023). In this study, academic writing quality is assessed based

on coherence, grammatical accuracy, and adherence to academic writing

conventions in student essays.

Adjective and Adverb Confusion. This involves incorrect usage of

adjectives and adverbs, particularly those ending in “-ly,” like “He almost

walked for the whole day” instead of “He walked for almost the whole day”

(Oxford International English, 2024). In this research, adjective and adverb

confusion refers to errors where students mistakenly use adjectives in place

of adverbs or vice versa.

Common Grammar Mistakes. These refer to errors in grammar that disrupt

effective communication, such as incomplete comparisons, adjective and

adverb confusion, pronoun disagreement, and misuse of homophones

(Oxford International English, 2024; Grammarly, 2023). Operationally, this

term refers to the recurring grammatical errors identified in the students’ essay

outputs in this study.

Error Frequency. This denotes the rate at which specific grammatical

errors occur within a set of written outputs (Coach from the Couch, 2023). In

this research, error frequency is measured by counting the occurrences of

particular grammar mistakes in student essays.

Homophone Mistakes. These involve confusion between words with similar

sounds but different meanings, such as “there,” “their,” and “they’re,” which

can affect clarity in writing (Writista, 2008). For this research, homophone

mistakes refer to instances where students misuse words that sound alike but

have different spellings and meanings.

Misuse of Modals. This refers to errors in modal verb usage common

among Filipino learners of English, such as “I will going to” instead of “I am

going to” (TalkShop, 2024). In this study, misuse of modals includes incorrect

application of modal verbs in students’ essays, leading to grammatical

inconsistencies.

Pluralization Errors. These are mistakes in pluralizing non-count nouns

like “equipment” or “furniture,” which should remain singular (TalkShop, 2024).

For this study, pluralization errors refer to instances where students incorrectly

add plural markers to non-count nouns or fail to pluralize countable nouns

when necessary.
 Second Language Acquisition (SLA) Theories. These are frameworks

explaining how individuals learn a second language, emphasizing input

(Krashen’s Input Hypothesis), interaction (Long’s Interaction Hypothesis), and

output (Swain’s Output Hypothesis) for language development (Krashen,

1982; Long, 1996; Swain, 1985). For this study, SLA theories provide the

foundation for understanding how JHCSC students acquire and apply English

grammar in their writing.

Subject-Verb Agreement. This is the grammatical rule requiring subjects

and verbs to match in number, such as using “Tourism has” instead of

“Tourism have” (UTS, 2024). In this study, subject-verb agreement errors refer

to mismatches between singular and plural subjects and their corresponding

verbs in student essays.

Writing Process . This is a systematic approach to developing writing skills

through stages like brainstorming, drafting, revising, and publishing

(University of Dayton, 2023). For this study, the writing process refers to the

steps students follow in composing their essays and how these steps impact

grammatical accuracy.
 Chapter 2

Review Related Literature

This chapter presents a review of relevant literature and studies related to

grammatical errors in second language writing. It explores key theories,

previous research findings, and various perspectives on error analysis,

interlanguage, and corrective feedback. The discussion provides a foundation

for understanding the common challenges language learners face and the

strategies used to address these issues.

Common Grammar Mistakes in Academic Writing

Grammar mistakes in academic writing remain a significant challenge for

second-language learners, influenced by linguistic interference and structural

differences between English and the learners’ native languages. Srisawat and

Poonpon (2023) found that subject-verb agreement and article usage errors

were among the most persistent issues among university students, often due

to interference from their first language (L1). Similarly, Handayani (2021)

highlighted that Indonesian students frequently struggle with modifier

placement and sentence structure, which negatively impacts writing clarity.

These findings suggest that L1 interference plays a crucial role in shaping

grammatical errors in academic writing.

Cross-linguistic influence also contributes to grammar mistakes, particularly

in sentence construction and verb tense consistency. Suharto (2019)

examined Indonesian students’ academic writing and found that tense shifting
and incorrect verb forms were common due to the absence of tense markers

in their native language. Likewise, Flege and Bohn (2021) argued that

second-language learners experience difficulties in applying English

grammatical rules consistently, especially when these rules do not have direct

equivalents in their first language. These studies highlight the need for

targeted grammar instruction that addresses cross-linguistic challenges.

Individual learner differences, such as proficiency level and exposure to

English, significantly impact grammatical accuracy. Anggraini (2020) found

that students with higher language proficiency made fewer grammatical

errors, particularly in complex sentence structures. Similarly, Wijayanti (2022)

noted that learners with greater exposure to English through reading and

writing activities exhibited better grammatical accuracy. These findings

emphasize the importance of sustained language exposure and practice in

reducing grammar mistakes in academic writing.

The effectiveness of instructional approaches in improving grammar

accuracy has been widely studied. Turner (2023) found that students who

received explicit grammar instruction demonstrated a significant reduction in

errors related to sentence fragments and run-on sentences. Likewise,

Kartushina and Martin (2019) suggested that feedback-based writing

interventions help students internalize grammar rules more effectively, leading

to long-term improvements in academic writing. These studies indicate that

direct and structured grammar instruction plays a crucial role in enhancing

students’ writing skills.

Sociolinguistic factors also play a role in grammatical accuracy, as students

from different linguistic backgrounds may struggle with varying aspects of

English grammar. Chang (2019) found that learners from non-Indo-European

language backgrounds exhibited higher error rates in subject-verb agreement

and article usage compared to those from Indo-European backgrounds.

Meanwhile, Tica-A (2024) observed that students with dialectal variations in

their native language tended to carry over syntactic structures into their

English writing. These findings highlight the importance of understanding

sociolinguistic influences when designing grammar instruction strategies.

Although numerous studies have analyzed grammatical errors in academic

writing, several gaps remain unaddressed. Most research focuses on error

identification rather than exploring the cognitive and linguistic factors that

contribute to these mistakes. Additionally, while instructional methods such as

direct grammar teaching and feedback interventions have been studied, there

is limited research on the long-term impact of these approaches on students’

writing development. Furthermore, comparative studies on how students from

different linguistic backgrounds struggle with specific grammar rules are

lacking. Addressing these gaps is essential for developing more effective

grammar instruction strategies that cater to diverse learner needs.

Factors Affecting Grammar Proficiency

Grammar proficiency in a second language (L2) is significantly shaped by a

learner’s first language (L1). According to Ellis and Shintani (2014), learners

whose L1 shares structural similarities with the L2 tend to acquire grammar

rules more easily, while those with significant syntactic differences often

struggle. Similarly, Odlin (2018) highlights that negative transfer from L1, such

as incorrect word order or tense usage, can hinder grammatical accuracy in

L2 writing. These findings suggest that linguistic background plays a crucial

role in shaping L2 grammar acquisition.

The effectiveness of grammar instruction depends on the teaching

methodology used. Nassaji and Fotos (2016) argue that explicit grammar

instruction combined with communicative practice enhances long-term

retention and application of grammar rules. On the other hand, Krashen

(2021) asserts that immersion-based learning with minimal grammar

explanation leads to subconscious grammar acquisition, particularly in

naturalistic learning environments. These contrasting perspectives emphasize

the need for a balanced approach that integrates both explicit instruction and

communicative exposure.

Motivation and attitude significantly affect a learner’s grammar proficiency.

Dörnyei and Ushioda (2021) state that intrinsically motivated learners who

view grammar as essential to communication are more likely to engage with

complex grammatical structures. Likewise, Gardner (2019) found that learners

with a positive attitude toward the target language and culture are more

receptive to grammatical instruction and correction. These studies indicate

that fostering motivation and a positive learning environment can enhance

grammar proficiency.

Frequent exposure to authentic language input strengthens grammar

acquisition. According to Lightbown and Spada (2020), learners who regularly

engage with native-level texts and spoken discourse develop a better

understanding of grammar in context. Similarly, Nation and Yamamoto (2019)

argue that extensive reading and listening help internalize grammar patterns

naturally, reducing reliance on memorization. These findings highlight the

importance of incorporating authentic language materials in grammar

instruction.

Cognitive factors, such as working memory capacity, influence a learner’s

ability to process and retain grammar rules. Robinson (2022) found that

learners with higher working memory capacity tend to acquire complex

grammatical structures more efficiently. In a related study, Skehan (2018)

observed that cognitive load affects grammar learning, with excessive rule

explanations sometimes leading to confusion rather than proficiency. These

insights suggest that grammar instruction should be adapted to individual

cognitive differences for optimal learning outcomes.

While existing studies have examined the influence of linguistic

background, instructional methods, motivation, exposure, and cognitive

factors on grammar proficiency, gaps remain in understanding how these

factors interact in different learning contexts. Most research focuses on either

classroom-based instruction or immersion settings, with limited exploration of

hybrid approaches that combine explicit teaching with authentic exposure.

Additionally, few studies have investigated the long-term retention of grammar

skills beyond formal education. Future research should explore how different

instructional methods can be optimized for diverse learner profiles and how

sustained exposure to language use impacts grammar proficiency over time.

Strategies for Improving Grammar Accuracy

Explicit grammar instruction plays a crucial role in developing grammatical

accuracy. According to Ellis and Shintani (2014), teaching grammar explicitly

helps learners internalize rules and apply them in their writing. Additionally,

corrective feedback is essential for reinforcing accuracy. Bitchener and Storch

(2016) found that providing focused written corrective feedback leads to long-

term improvements in grammatical accuracy. These studies highlight that a

combination of explicit instruction and corrective feedback enhances learners’

grammar proficiency.

Engaging learners in communicative tasks promotes grammar accuracy in

a meaningful context. Long (2015) emphasizes that task-based language

teaching (TBLT) encourages learners to use grammar structures naturally

while focusing on communication. Similarly, Ellis (2017) found that interactive

grammar tasks improve learners’ ability to use grammatical forms correctly in

real-life communication. These findings suggest that incorporating task-based

activities can make grammar learning more effective and engaging.

 Exposure to well-structured texts through reading enhances grammar

accuracy. Krashen (2021) states that extensive reading provides learners with

natural grammar input, which helps them acquire correct structures

subconsciously. Meanwhile, Nation (2020) argues that consistent writing

practice reinforces grammatical patterns and improves accuracy over time.

These studies indicate that combining reading and writing activities fosters

grammar development in a natural and meaningful way.

Technology-based tools support grammar learning by providing immediate

feedback and personalized instruction. Liu and Lu (2020) found that grammar-

checking software such as Grammarly helps learners identify and correct

grammatical mistakes effectively. Similarly, Li and Hegelheimer (2018)

discovered that mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) applications

enhance grammar accuracy through interactive exercises and real-time

feedback. These findings suggest that integrating technology into language

learning can improve grammar proficiency.

Developing metalinguistic awareness helps learners analyze and correct

their own grammatical errors. According to Roehr-Brackin (2018), learners

who reflect on grammar rules and monitor their writing tend to achieve higher

accuracy. Additionally, Hyland and Anan (2021) found that self-correction

strategies, such as peer review and self-editing, significantly enhance

grammatical accuracy. These studies emphasize the importance of fostering

metacognitive skills to improve grammar proficiency.

 Although various strategies have been explored to improve grammar

accuracy, gaps remain in understanding how these methods interact in

different learning contexts. While research supports the benefits of explicit

instruction, task-based learning, and technology integration, little is known

about their combined effects when used simultaneously. Moreover, studies

often focus on short-term improvements, with limited research on the long-

term retention of grammar skills. Future studies should investigate how

different instructional approaches can be optimized for various learner profiles

and how sustained practice impacts grammatical accuracy over time.

 References

Al-Khasawneh, F. M. (2014). Error Analysis of Written English Essays:

The Case of Students of the Preparatory Year Program in Saudi Arabia.
English for Specific Purposes World, 15(42). Retrieved from https://www.esp-
world.info/Articles_42/Documents/Al-Khasawneh.pdf
Anaktototy, R., & Latuny, A. (2023). Grammatical errors on descriptive
academic writing: A study on Indonesian university students. Journal of
Language and Education, 10(2), 58-73. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361439624
Anh, N. H. M., Yen, N. H., Tho, N. T. Y., & Nhut, L. M. (2022).
Grammatical errors in academic writing of English second-year students.
European Journal of English Language Teaching, 7(6). Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.46827/ejel.v7i6.4547
Anyanwu, C., Cruz, P., & Santos, M. (2024). Impact of new media syntax
on students’ academic writing in the Philippines. Asian Journal of Education
and e-Learning, 12(3), 150-162. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.34127/ajeel.2024.12.3.150
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written Corrective Feedback for L2
Development. Multilingual Matters. Retrieved from
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.21832/9781783095056/html
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa
Lectures. Foris Publications. Retrieved from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectures_on_Government_and_Binding
 Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and
Use. Praeger. Retrieved from https://sites.pitt.edu/~perfetti/PDF/Chomsky.pdf
Coach from the Couch. (2023). Understanding Error Frequency in
Writing. Retrieved from https://www.coachfromthecouch.com/error-frequency

Corder, S. P. (1967). The Significance of Learners’ Errors. International

Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5(1-4), 161-170.
Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED019903.pdf
Darus, S., & Subramaniam, K. (2009). Error Analysis of the Written
English Essays of Secondary School Students in Malaysia: A Case Study.
European Journal of Social Sciences, 8(3), 483-495. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228765644
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2021). Teaching and Researching Motivation
(3rd ed.). Routledge. Retrieved from https://www.routledge.com/Teaching-
and-Researching-Motivation/Dornyei-Ushioda/p/book/9780367630661
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford
University Press. Retrieved from
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/task-based-language-learning-and-
teaching-9780194421591
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2013). Exploring Language Pedagogy through
Second Language Acquisition Research. Routledge. Retrieved from
https://www.routledge.com/Exploring-Language-Pedagogy-through-Second-
Language-Acquisition-Research/Ellis-Shintani/p/book/9780415519731
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring Language Pedagogy through
Second Language Acquisition Research. Routledge. Retrieved from
https://www.routledge.com/Exploring-Language-Pedagogy-through-Second-
Language-Acquisition-Research/Ellis-Shintani/p/book/9780415519731
ERIC. (2023). Standards for Academic Writing. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED123456
Gardner, R. C. (2019). Social Psychology and Second Language
Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. Edward Arnold. Retrieved
from
https://publish.uwo.ca/~gardner/docs/SECONDLANGUAGE1985book.pdf
Grammarly. (2023). New Features & Product Releases. Retrieved from
https://www.grammarly.com/releases-spring-2023
Handayani, Y. (2021). An Analysis of Common Grammar Mistakes in
Students’ Academic Writing at the English Department of IAIN Parepare.
Retrieved from https://repository.iainpare.ac.id/id/eprint/2390/
Ho, P. T. (2024). Problems with academic writing encountered by EFL
postgraduate students at a university in the Mekong Delta. European Journal
of English Language Teaching, 9(1). Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377907314
James, C. (1998). Errors in Language Learning and Use: Exploring Error
Analysis. Routledge. Retrieved from https://www.routledge.com/Errors-in-
Language-Learning-and-Use-Exploring-Error-Analysis/James/p/book/
9780582257684
Keshavarz, M. H. (2012). Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis.
Rahmana Press. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285439173
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language
Acquisition. Pergamon Press. Retrieved from
https://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/principles_and_practice.pdf
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How Languages Are Learned (4th
ed.). Oxford University Press. Retrieved from
https://elt.oup.com/catalogue/items/global/teacher_development/9780194541
268
Liu, D. (2020). A study of common grammatical errors in EFL students’
writing. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 11(5), 765-774.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1105.07
Long, M. H. (1996). The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second
Language Acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (Eds.), Handbook of Second
Language Acquisition, pp. 413-468. Academic Press. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780125890427500123
Norrish, J. (1983). Language Learners and Their Errors. Macmillan.
Retrieved from https://www.macmillan.com/books/language-learners-and-
their-errors
Polio, C. (2012). Second Language Writing Development: A Research
Perspective. Equinox Publishing. Retrieved from
https://www.equinoxpub.com/home/second-language-writing-development/
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in Language
Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/methodology-in-
language-teaching
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied
Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(3), 209-232. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209
Silalahi, R. M., & Siregar, H. (2023). An analysis of grammatical errors in
students’ argumentative essays. International Journal of English Language
Teaching, 10(4), 45-57. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368245789
Tetreault, J., Burstein, J., & Madnani, N. (2018). Automated Grammatical
Error Detection for Language Learners (2nd ed.). Morgan & Claypool
Publishers. Retrieved from
https://www.morganclaypool.com/doi/abs/10.2200/S00873ED1V01Y201806H
LT041
Truscott, J. (1996). The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing
Classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition.
John Benjamins Publishing. Retrieved from
https://benjamins.com/catalog/lald.1
Yule, G. (2020). The Study of Language (7th ed.). Cambridge University
Press. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/study-of-
language/0772E6B814949F3D682EE06F4D2F3CB2
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to Student Writing: The Role of Teachers’
Comments. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79-101. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.2307/3586773